RWB

Not a US Mint alteration. Zombie bait.

RE: "I use cotton cloth cut in 2x2’s so I don’t scratch ding or anything. Paper works well. I just had lots of tee-shirts." Preferably, use something that does not shed fibers - a piece of 100% polyester (no dye or UV brightener) can work well.

Measurements are taken to the 3rd decimal place (interpolated) of a gram....about the weight of a dust mote or two. That's why 10 measurements - to even out the errors of each measurement. Metal-to-metal contact can distort measurements when small pieces rub off. It also lessens contamination if other measurements, such as density, are taken. In a small lab setting, filter paper discs would be used with a new disc for each measurement and light sable brushing of the coin edge. But, given that most collector handle coins by their edge, and routinely smear finger oil/dirt on the edge, such precautions are probably excessive. I use a hard, thin plastic disc and check under magnification for any particles on the coin.

OK.... Let's exchange that guy for a televangelist or other swindler. Should at least accomplish something positive through evolution.

Privy quarters are given in change only for purchases of bathroom tissue - in the super mega giant pack of three extra large rolls.

Just to clarify the display decimal places --- the final display digit to right of the decimal is always an interpolation, that is, it is not repeatably accurate. Rounding accounts for the interpolation and produces a repeatably accurate result. U.S. Mint assays and weights were supposed to be measured to the 3rd decimal place (thousandths) with a 4th place equal to either 0 or 5 - essentially an interpolation. In fact it was not until the mid-1890s that mint assays were occasionally repeatably accurate to 3 places, and well into the 19-teens until that was "normal." Alloy inaccuracy is one of the Mint's long-term "little secrets" - but there was nothing better under operating conditions of the time.

If you can afford it, buy a digital scale with a 100g capacity and gram measurements to 3 decimal places. You will then round the display value to two places for reporting final results. Make sure the scale can be easily calibrated and that it has a tare (or net item weight) setting. Lastly, do not put a coin directly on the scale -- cut a small piece of good paper, put that on the scale, tare the weight, then add the coin. You should do this 10 times for EACH coin, then average the 3-decimal place results and round to two decimal places in grams. If you are using Troy grains, go to 3 decimal places after rounding - this will normalize to the way the US Mint measured grain weights in the 19th and early 20th centuries.

Certainly has nice toning. Hoping Quintus appreciates all the research members are putting into finding him the final, ideal hens -- oops -- roosters for his farm.

Welllll.....maybe it could "land" instead ?

Nothing special. This was the final year before a new master die was introduced.

While seemingly slightly removed from coin collecting, this little article might suggest alternative ways of handling coins or possibly "plus-size" coin collectors. https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-58507100

Is the quarter polished? Looks very unnatural for the circulation wear.

Located the elusive MS-68 rooster -- and it's already slabbed.

Looks a trifle "rough."

Mohawk - You have no need to apologize for anything. You presented what you felt was good and useful information - that is what honest people do. The travesty comes from the greedy SOBs who promote a falsehood. They have succeeding in building nothing but normal coinage into a distortion of truth for their own profit. That any "authoritative organization" would endorse this without extensive, careful research, is simply ineptness or possibly worse. Much the same applies to calling a coin "specimen" with no supporting data, I could go on, but will not. I'll state as clearly as possible so that no one can misunderstand: No Special Mint Sets, or coins intended for such sets, were struck for 1964-dated U.S. coinage.

For those who care to know --- the 1965 "Special Mint Sets" were just that: coins that were made for mint sets but using fresh die pairs to get a better impression, and handled a little more carefully than prior years. That is the only "special" part aside from the packaging. In 1964 and every other year before and after, new die pairs were regularly put in service as needed. The first few coins off a new pair would look exactly like a 1965 SMS coin, except it did not get special packaging or handling. The US Mint donated new coins to the Smithsonian, and these are hand picked coins, also off new die pairs. That is the real story. The rest on the internet and some "TPG" sites is false. The whole thing was cooked up to skim grossly exaggerated profit off ordinary 1964 coins. Every coin series is always a mixture of these "first off the die" coins, ordinary production coins, and final coins off the dies before condemnation. (Some like to call them early, mid and late die states.) They will be found for every year, every mint and every denomination.

Someplace, I have a $50 bag of unsearched wheat cents....except they are nearly all "unsearched" 1947 cents. That's about as "unsearched" as they get now-a-days. Buy 'em for the fun of digging through 5,000 little bronze cents, but don't actually expect to find so much as one real "keeper." Two or three cents per coin is fair. PS: I suspect the wrapper is fake. Mint and FRB did not roll coins, and there was no reason for BEP to print wrappers.

"Mon" coins were also produced in Scotland and Jamaica. The Scottish coin was called a "Hoot Mon" or a "Whr ye go'n." The Jamaican coin was often called a "Hey Mon, tally me banana." End of little known coin non-facts.

This little item popped up on CNN: https://www.cnn.com/style/article/brittany-builders-discover-gold-coins-intl-scli/index.html?fbclid=IwAR2Z1C5Bcp3MazR3GUTkzh3g12FyXrzowa1T4I9GT5O3VOaiKL4nua7Xd6g Equal split of value between property owners and finders.

That one got caught in a mouse trap - it will not "squeek" at all.

OP --- Listen to Mark. He is offering some excellent advice.

If you are not sure, ask for help from someone with more experience grading coins. There are good reasons why NNC grading is not accepted by ebay and others.

But what about the standards....? Easy. Circulation, use the ANA standards. Programming is little more than a series of If-Then statements: conditionals implementing the visual and written descriptions - basically the same as done now but with objective consistency. Easy. Uncirculated, use the common range overlaps for the major TPGs. The programming is a set of counts/area vs area each side calculate the mean. Easy. One standard deviation range; mean both sides will break ties. Easy. Proof like, use major TPG definitions, then mean reflected beam dispersion from 6 points each side. Also works for legitimate brilliant proofs, etc. (Sandblast and matte proof would not work.) A high schooler could write most of this with a little supervision and database help.

It would do exactly what meaningful "grading" should do: establish an equal empirical base for every graded coin. From that base of equality, opinions would then flourish and become part of a useful and meaningful discussion of value to individuals. As a practical matter, the street value of many coins would not change. A lot might go up, and some would go down. But the entire structure would be open, honest and without corporate or anonymous bias. Grade inflation would cease - although owners would have a field day with exaggeration; but they do that anyway. Bottom line: let facts tell the basic story (just as in research) and keep opinion separate. OK....ok....I hear a great grinding flutter in the wallets of some - so what? Be truthful or begone!

Yep. We do not have a clear original model, or master coin for most early US coins. Even for more modern coins there are many without a design master available - 1921 Peace dollars, for example, have zero specimens that fully realize the US Mint design cast; what's a 1968 fully struck Lincoln cent look like? How about a 1965 quarter or a 1948 half dollar? The bands/steps/heads are bologna because a single "full" feature does not mean the coin design was fully realized. Standing Liberty quarters are an outstanding example of misleading "full strike" terminology. A full head detail coin can have missing shield stars or rivets or stripes, or lost toes; a full steps Jefferson nickel can easily have missing head detail; none of the 1936-42 proofs have full design detail, etc., etc. The clutter of misleading terms leads to deception about the quality of a coin's true detail, and a false belief that a specific coin is somehow better than another.